Case 2301905/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Nadine Fallone v Peckham Levels Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2301905/2023
Decision date: 7 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge L Clarke Members
Panel members: Ms J Cook, Mr N Westwood

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Nadine Fallone

Respondent

Peckham Levels Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal unanimously upheld the claimant's whistleblowing detriment complaint in part. It found that, between 17 January and 3 February 2023, she was ignored by Dee Stewart, Maysoon Matthyson and Yayha Amal and that the events team failed to refer duty manager matters to her; that she was taken off the rota from 28 January 2023 until reinstated after complaint; that she was not told the reason for her immediate dismissal on 16 February 2023; and that she was not given a right of appeal. The remaining detriment complaints were dismissed. The tribunal awarded £25,000 for injury to feelings and applied a 15% uplift under s.207A TULRCA 1992, giving a total of £28,750 for the detriment claim.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because she made a protected disclosure. It recorded that no basic award was claimed or payable because the claimant had less than one year of continuous service, and it awarded a compensatory award of £35,259.63. The judgment also applied the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996, recording a prescribed element of £33,080.902 for the period 16 February 2023 to 31 May 2024 and a difference of £2,178.73.

The tribunal also found that, when the proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. It considered the section 38 Employment Act 2002 remedy, found there were no exceptional circumstances making a two-week award unjust or inequitable, and concluded that a four-week award was not just and equitable. It therefore awarded £915.22. The total amount payable on the judgment's figures is £64,924.85.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Claim for detriment for making protected disclosures. The tribunal upheld the complaints that the claimant was ignored by Dee Stewart, Maysoon Matthyson and Yayha Amal from 17 January to 3 February 2023 and that the events team failed to refer duty manager matters to her; that she was taken off the rota completely from 28 January 2023 until reinstated after complaint; that she was not told the reason for her immediate dismissal on 16 February 2023; and that she was not given a right of appeal. The remaining detriment complaints were dismissed. The award included £25,000 for injury to feelings and a 15% uplift under s.207A TULRCA 1992, producing £28,750 total for this claim.	Upheld	—	£28,750
Unfair dismissal	Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed because she made a protected disclosure. No basic award was claimed or payable because the claimant had less than one year of continuous service. A compensatory award of £35,259.63 was ordered, subject to recoupment. The judgment records a prescribed element of £33,080.902 for the period 16 February 2023 to 31 May 2024, with the balance of £2,178.73.	Upheld	—	£35,260
Other	Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal found the respondent was in breach when proceedings began, no exceptional circumstances made a two-week award unjust or inequitable, and it was not just and equitable to award four weeks' gross pay. The award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 was £915.22.	Upheld	—	£915

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £64,925; across all upheld claims
Compensatory award: £35,260; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.